SC Releases his 'white paper', hilarity ensues - page 8.

Red

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 115

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:42:08 AM

So a mixture of licensed mining and money? I'm not sure a more complicated approach is better.

No, I mean simpler than that. You have a rule that says, "only accounts with one million plus SC, can sign these even blocks."
You might just as well said, only humans with real name validated verisign certificates could sign. It's the non-anonymity that makes the trust. Not the money.

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:42:08 AM

This is simple for general people to understand "money = security" .

Which makes this a very ironic statement. Since at this very moment, people are camping in the streets protesting the anonymous rich! I dare you to go down to wall street and tell everyone, "Those with the most money should be in charge of your security!"

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:48:10 AM

Quote from: johnj on October 12, 2011, 12:46:27 AM

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:43:51 AM

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Why do you constantly defer to other peoples actions to justify your own.
Fact is, deepbit can lose hashpower. Or other pools can grow and compete. That's far more decentralized than 10 hand-picked, only-known-to-you nodes to receive 1.2m coins each, and control every other block.

Because it's highly relevant to this discussion of centralization.

Currently BTC is nearly 50% controlled by a single entity. Please tell me how decentralized this is, 50% > 10%.

Your super nodes are constantly, forever 50%. You hand picked those, you designed your bait-and-switch around it.

Deepbit is not. Deepbit is big right now because miners have chosen to mine there. Your scamchain has pre-dictated who the chosen 'trust' nodes are.

Your 'deepbit' angle is shallow, and your deferment to every other chain but your own tells of the scam you're performing.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 12:45:27 AM

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

And in the meantime you are expecting the guy not to misbehave... And take action when he does misbehave lol

yet, here you are, giving the benefit of the doubt to deepbit but not to coinhunter lol

oops, there went your argument... fool

simonk83

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:43:51 AM

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

It's duplicitous. Seems clear now why these few weirdos that float around these threads blindly defending you, do so. Pretty decent incentive. You've already proved in the past you're not against getting people to spam positive comments to drum up support of SC.

Whatever, enjoy it while it lasts.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: johnj on October 12, 2011, 12:46:27 AM

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:43:51 AM

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Why do you constantly defer to other peoples actions to justify your own.
Fact is, deepbit can lose hashpower. Or other pools can grow and compete. That's far more decentralized than 10 hand-picked, only-known-to-you nodes to receive 1.2m coins each, and control every other block.

Because it's highly relevant to this discussion of centralization.

Currently BTC is nearly 50% controlled by a single entity. Please tell me how decentralized this is, 50% > 10%.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:43:51 AM

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Exactly. Anyone who believes BTC is decentralized is an idiot. Gavin, MtGox, Deepbit, "the manipulator" etc. pull all the shots in this closed system.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 12:45:27 AM

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:43:51 AM

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

Oh right, why aren't people leaving him now when they know it's a flaw in BTC that the network can be attacked in that manner?

Can BTC recover if deepbit doublespends in multiple exchanges, businesses, etc ? That's an interesting theory, sure they may stop mining at deepbit after it comes out the attacks are carried out but by then the damage is done isn't it?

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:43:51 AM

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Why do you constantly defer to other peoples actions to justify your own.
Fact is, deepbit can lose hashpower. Or other pools can grow and compete. That's far more decentralized than 10 hand-picked, only-known-to-you nodes to receive 1.2m coins each, and control every other block.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:43:51 AM

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 12:42:13 AM

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

simonk83

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:24:00 AM

Quote from: Red on October 12, 2011, 12:20:32 AM

Question, for CoinHunter. Who runs the trusted peers? Are they all yours?

I have control of one of the accounts currently, I'm not sure if I will end up with any, just for now it's easier this way. I won't say how many are in the wild yet but we are increasing the presence on the network of them.

The people I'm giving them to are ardent SC supporters, who have families, assets and things to lose if they do anything inappropriate with it, combined with having excellent knowledge about system running.

I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Roll Eyes

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Red on October 12, 2011, 12:37:50 AM

I have to admit I thought the trusted nodes as vector clock idea was clever.
Did you build in any additional logic to help resolve chain forking due to network partitioning?

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:32:17 AM

Indeed, I agree the initial startup isn't as optimal as if we had million dollar account holders from the get-go, where they can stay anonymous. However there's not like there is much alternative.

If people want a secure network (which I and others believe many do) then some compromises have to be made. If they don't then SC will not do well and something else will pass it.

I really have to disagree here though. You system would have been trivial to implement without the million SC accounts. All you need is a dozen people to say, "Hi, I'm Fred. I'm watching the system. If something goes wrong. Sue me at this address." That is basically what you did by giving out million plus SC accounts. Except you're not telling anyone who the account holders are. So if they collaboratively misbehave, there is no one to sue.

So a mixture of licensed mining and money? I'm not sure a more complicated approach is better. This is simple for general people to understand "money = security" . The amount of time it would take those trusted nodes to pass out their money is massive, and they stop passing money out when they go under a million dollars. So think of it more like 200K*10 going back to CPF over a very long period of time.

There have been large changes to handle reorgs and whatnot, and more to come.

Red

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 115

I have to admit I thought the trusted nodes as vector clock idea was clever.
Did you build in any additional logic to help resolve chain forking due to network partitioning?

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:32:17 AM

Indeed, I agree the initial startup isn't as optimal as if we had million dollar account holders from the get-go, where they can stay anonymous. However there's not like there is much alternative.

If people want a secure network (which I and others believe many do) then some compromises have to be made. If they don't then SC will not do well and something else will pass it.

I really have to disagree here though. You system would have been trivial to implement without the million SC accounts. All you need is a dozen people to say, "Hi, I'm Fred. I'm watching the system. If something goes wrong. Sue me at this address." That is basically what you did by giving out million plus SC accounts. Except you're not telling anyone who the account holders are. So if they collaboratively misbehave, there is no one to sue.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: johnj on October 12, 2011, 12:31:28 AM

Vague threats on peoples families is not the best way to inspire confidence that you're not a scammer.

CPF fund will be used to hire lawyers and other things to prosecute criminals. Regardless of who they are. If any one of the initial trust holders scam anyone then I've failed in my job to select good characters, so therefore anyone I select I think has an excellent character.

How they would potentially scam people depends. It's not a traditional scam in that they have coins to spend, as they can't spend the trust accounts. But in theory they could prefer some nodes blocks, or give the wallet to hackers who may have a valid millionaire account and together they can disrupt network performance. (Double spends are nearly impossible even with trust accounts due to manual shutdown on large reorgs).

I've tried to limit the effects of the initial trust holders as much as possible because I like most people don't want to see them abused.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Raoul Duke on October 12, 2011, 12:22:29 AM

Let me ask you something: Are SolidCoins worth anything to you?

https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger

Anything is worth what the market will pay for it right now. The market says they are worth $0.001 ea. Personally I think long term they will be worth absolutely nothing but that is immaterial if you can exchange them for something that won't be worth nothing (USD, BTC, Gold) before that happens.

For the record I never said SC are worthless. Someone else did and in the specific context that IF THEY CAN'T BE SPENT THEY ARE WORTHLESS. However the claim of them not being able to be spent is just double talk. They transfer from trust nodes to CH personal wallet where they can be spent.

And currently they are worth $0.001. Obviously CH hopes to con enough people to make that number much higher. I hope he doesn't. Currency trading is a zero sum game. If the value goes to 0 then ultimately for every winner (Coin Hunter) then there is a loser (sucker who though SC was "solid" and didn't realize the smoke and mirrors which amount to a continual wealth transfer to CH).

The market also said Bitcoins were worth $30, and $20 and $10, and $0.001 even...

That's all subjective. Why didn't you defend also those folks who bought bitcoins at $30 and lost money?
I suppose that was OK with you... Like they say: A fool and his money are soon parted. Just be happy YOU are not one of those fools. Or maybe you are: JUST ASK THE DUDES FROM SOMETHINGAWFUL!

PS: At first i was completely against the alt currencies in this forums, but OH BOY, they sure are entertaining.

CoinHunter

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Red on October 12, 2011, 12:27:55 AM

Good to know. But the only way to build real trust is through non-anonymity.
Anonymous trust is a bit of an oxymoron.

Indeed, I agree the initial startup isn't as optimal as if we had million dollar account holders from the get-go, where they can stay anonymous. However there's not like there is much alternative.

If people want a secure network (which I and others believe many do) then some compromises have to be made. If they don't then SC will not do well and something else will pass it.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:24:00 AM

The people I'm giving them to are ardent SC supporters, who have families, assets and things to lose if they do anything inappropriate with it, combined with having excellent knowledge about system running.

Wait why would you need to do that. I thought the coins CAN'T be spent from trusted nodes. Or is this more "trust". Can an owner of trusted node spend or transfer coins from the trusted node? I am not asking about trust, or should they .... CAN THEY. Is it technically possible to remove funds from trusted nodes.

Will you share source code that proves this claim? Will you share any of the source code?

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Found a great quote on the 5 reasons to own SolidCoin page:

"Unlike Bitcoin's startup which ensured nearly all the currency ended up with only a handful of people. These people have since vanished and cashed out, to leave the project to stagnate with little support from early adopters."

SolidCoin solves this problem by putting nearly all the coins in the hands of one person (plus everyone who mined in the first week).

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:28:56 AM

Quote from: xzion on October 12, 2011, 12:26:37 AM

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:24:00 AM

...who have families, assets and things to lose...

you're going to do WHAT to their families and assets for misbehaving??

I believe if others scam or harm others in some way then justice should be served. It's quite simple. What else should happen to fraudsters and scammers?

I'm quite big on punishing those that hurt others, if someone finds it HARD not to hurt others I don't think they should be alive. Just my own life philosophy.

Vague threats on peoples families is not the best way to inspire confidence that you're not a scammer.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1350

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:28:56 AM

Quote from: xzion on October 12, 2011, 12:26:37 AM

Quote from: CoinHunter on October 12, 2011, 12:24:00 AM

...who have families, assets and things to lose...

you're going to do WHAT to their families and assets for misbehaving??

I believe if others scam or harm others in some way then justice should be served. It's quite simple. What else should happen to fraudsters and scammers?

I'm quite big on punishing those that hurt others, if someone finds it HARD not to hurt others I don't think they should be alive. Just my own life philosophy.

I got to ask. How do you plan to hurt them if they misbehave?

Topic: SC Releases his 'white paper', hilarity ensues - page 8. (Read 13165 times)